TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 543
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Pet.) No. 3405 / 2016 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3406 / 2016 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3407 / 2016 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3408 / 2016 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3409 / 2016 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3410 / 2016 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3411 / 2016 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3412 / 2016 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3413 / 2016 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3414 / 2016 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3415 / 2016 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3416 / 2016 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3425 / 2016 ORDER This bunch of misc. petitions preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused as well as the complainants have emerged on account of a common controversy in relation to similar complaints preferred in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and is thus, being decided together by this order. Numerous complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act came to be filed in the year 2011 by Sarva Shri Kamal Kishore Joshi, Sunil Chhangani and Mangi Lal Purohit (the complainants) against Nirmal Nilesh and Ena Nitin Bhai (the accused). On 16.1.2011, the trial court took cognizance against the respective accused and su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned order. The original orders passed by the trial court have been filed along with these misc. petitions. Thus for ensuring that the petitioners are able to file the complaints afresh before the trial court as directed above in light of the recent amendment in the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is directed that the original orders passed by the trial court shall be returned back to the petitioner's counsel after retaining a certified copy thereof on the record." While deciding these misc. petitions, this Court gave liberty to the respective complainants to move applications for revival of their complaints while lifting the bar of limitation if any. Pursuant thereto, the complainants filed applications for revival of their complaints and the trial court passed an order dated 22.12.2015, directing re-registration of all the complaints at their original number and resummoned the accused to face trial. The counsel representing the accused appeared in the trial Court on 3.2.2016 and on 14.3.2016 respectively and prayed for exemption of personal presence of the accused. Finally, when despite being aware of the proceedings, the accused failed to put in appearance, the trial Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case (supra). He urged that the5 ambiguity in the situation was clarified beyond all probable doubts with the amendment brought around in Section 142 of the N.I. Act in the year 2015. The said amendment authorised presentation of the complaints in the same court in whose territorial jurisdiction, the cheques were delivered for collection or presented for payment. In the cases at hand, the complaints were originally filed in the court at Phalodi in whose territorial jurisdiction, the cheques were presented for collection. Owing to the ambiguous situation created by dictum in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case (supra), the complaints were returned for presentation to another court. However, with the introduction of above amendment, the complainants became entitled to resubmit their complaints in the original court in view of the liberty granted to them by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. He further urged that the objection raised by the accused persons that the complainants did not file any formal application for revival of the complaint in light of this Court's decision is of no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion under sub-section (2) of section 142 or the case has been transferred to that court under subsection (1) and such complaint is pending in that court, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court irrespective of whether those cheques were delivered for collection or presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. (3) If, on the date of the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, more than one prosecution filed by the same payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, against the same drawer of cheques is pending before different courts, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court, such court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, before which the first case was filed and is pending, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times. 5. (1) The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cking jurisdiction on account of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Darshrath Rupsingh Rathod's (supra), stood ratified and saved. In the cases at hand, the complainants challenged the orders of return of their complaints by filing the above referred misc. petitions in this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Notices of the misc. petitions were served upon the accused. The court after hearing the learned counsel representing the parties gave explicit permission to the complainants to seek revival of their complaints in the trial court. Pursuant to such direction, the complainants resubmitted the original complaints with the copy of this Court's order dated 15.12.2015 in the trial court which directed re-registration thereof by separate orders dated 22.12.2015 which have not been challenged and have thus attained finality. Thus, the challenge laid on behalf of the accused persons that the order taking cognizance is bad in the eye of law is per-se without any merit whatsoever and cannot be sustained. The only order which is under challenge in the set of misc. petitions filed on behalf of the accused is the order dated 26.4.2016 by which, the court dir....